INNOVATIONS IN SME’s IN INDUSTRY IN ROMANIA BETWEEN 2000-2008
BY USING THE SHARE OF TURNOVER OF INNOVATIVE PRODUCT
BUSINESS
Nicolov Mirela
1,2, Rusu Sergiu
1,21
Universitatea Aurel Vlaicu din Arad , Arad, Romania,
2
Universitatea din Oradea, Oradea, Romania
e-mail:nicolovmirela@gmail.com
Abstract : We present here a study done on the values of share of turnover of innovative product business, innovations with the total turnover innovative enterprises by size class and economic activity expressed in percentage . The values used in the present study are for Romania in the period 2000 and 2008 , when were the first registration for these types of data We study the following cases: products unchanged or partially changed, new or significantly improved products, new business and new or significantly improved products, new market .Studies are made for total small and medium SMEs and for the sectors of industry and manufacturing.
Keywords: innovations, SME ( small and medium enterprises), industry
1. Introduction
In the present paper we study how we can measure innovation in SMEs per total and in the sector of industry and manufacturing .
We present here a study done on the values of share of turnover of innovative product business, innovations with the total turnover innovative enterprises by size class and economic activity expressed in percentage . The values used in the present study are for Romania in the period 2000 and 2008 , when were the first registration for these types of data
We study the following cases: products unchanged or partially changed, new or significantly improved products, new business and new or significantly improved products, new market.
Studies are made for total small and medium SMEs and for the sectors of industry and manufacturing.
Depending on the annual average number of staff, they rank as follows [1,2] - to 9 employees , small - have between 10-49 employees, medium-sized enterprises - have between 50-249 employees.
Proof of the annual average number issued by the Labor Board based on average number reported the previous year, - For enterprises established in the current year will be taken into account the period between the date of
creation and date of issue of such evidence,
- The turnover of the activities in the sphere of production (and services) is certified by the Tax territorial - Law 133/1999 regulates certain arrangements for the protection of entrepreneurs in their relations with the
state and states need to simplify administrative procedures, providing absolute nullity even for those measures or acts which result in discrimination against SMEs based on seniority or size,
Deadlines are set right (no of days) and one stop shops in addition to local chambers of commerce and industry, with simplified procedures for the establishment of SMEs obtaining permits, licenses and operating licenses,
Scope of small and medium business
Distribution area of business that may be encountered in a certain weight, the following areas [1,2]:
a. the production - businesses in this area can provide a stable long-term profit, but the main disadvantage, high initial investment and high return on investment risk (currency depreciation when compared with the lion), the share of these types of business in our country amounts to 20-22% of established firms
b. trade - offers major advantages as rapid return on investment and high profit level since the early course of business, and as the main disadvantages: the appearance of unfair competition or market saturation with similar products, share these types of businesses is over 60 % of established firms,
c. services - indicates that the main advantage of the optimal level of profit consistently and reliably, while the share of firms in this area is between 6-8%, disadvantages to these types of firms may be due to the low level of services provided in qualitative terms or in relation to similar companies,
Depending on the annual average number of staff, they rank as follows [1,2]
• Micro enterprises less then 9 employees ,
• Small enterprises - have between 10-49 employees,
• Medium-sized enterprises - have between 50-249 employees [1,2]
Innovation in Industry
According to the Romanian Statistical Yearbook 2009, 2010 published by National Statistics Institute from Bucharest [1÷6]:
Scope of active companies with over 9 employees, which does business and that the main economic activity in the following areas: Industry (NACE Rev., 2 divisions: 05-09, 10 to 33.35, 36-39);
Innovation is an activity that results in a new or significantly improved product or new or significantly improved process, a new method of marketing or a new method organizational. Innovation is based on the results of new technology, of technological developments, new combinations of existing technology or knowledge obtained using other enterprise, innovation must be new for the company, but need not be new to the industry or market no matter if the innovation originally appeared respondent or other business enterprise,
Product innovation means the introduction of a good new or significantly improved with respect to its characteristics, such as an improved software, user-friendly introduction to elements, components or subsystems, Corresponds to the implementation of a process innovation production process, a method of distribution or a new or significantly improved support activities.
Organizational innovation is the implementation of new methods of company business practices, workplace organization or in external relations.
Marketing Innovation refers to implementing a new marketing methods that involve significant changes in design or product packaging, in product placement, promotion or pricing .
Innovative companies are companies that have launched products (goods or services) new or significantly improved marketing or introduced new or significantly improved processes or new methods of organization and marketing, the term covers all types of innovators, product innovators, process, methods of organization and methods of marketing, as well as unfinished or abandoned innovation enterprises refer to enterprises and assets,
Technological innovation enterprises are those businesses that have products or new processes or significantly improved
Companies with non-technological innovation are those companies that have introduced methods of organization or marketing new or significantly improved.
Completed or abandoned innovation enterprises are enterprises which have completed or abandoned innovation to develop or introduce new or significantly improved products (goods or services) or implement new processes, including research and development,
Non-innovative enterprises are enterprises which had innovative activities during the analysis, the company responded to a limited set of questions in a survey about the lack of innovative,
2. Literature review
Comparisons of productivity across countries and industries are important for evaluating economic performance .
From the 1960s onwards the idea that differences in development are mainly caused by technological differences received increasing support [7] . This view was, consistent with the perspective on growth developed by Schumpeter [8,9] and during the 1980s a lot of new work on cross-country differences in levels of development and growth performance inspired by this perspective emerged [10].
Until recently, there was a lack of appropriate data that could be used to put numbers on the various aspects emphasized by the theoretical literature. But after 2000, the quality and availability of data on different aspects of development have improved, and this may give researchers a new opportunity for investigating the reasons behind the large differences in economic performance[11].
The first systematic attempts to study the relationships between technology, capabilities and development were made by economic historians who wanted to understand why some countries managed to catch-up with the richer ones while other countries continued to be poor. More than 40 years ago Alexander Gerschenkron pointed out that technological catch-up, although potentially highly lucrative, is an extremely challenging venture [7]. Based on a study of the performance of a number of European countries relative to the then leading country – Great Britain – concluded that to succeed in technological catch-up less advanced countries had to develop what he called “new institutional instruments”, e.g., organizations capable of identifying the most promising options ahead and muster the necessary resources for exploiting these opportunities[11].
The extraction of resources will influence the economy by shifting labour and capital towards such activities and by offering higher wages resource extraction will attract well educated workers [12]. Income from resource extraction will stimulate demand from the service sector and increase wages, which may lead to a ‘‘crowding out’’ effect as traditional export oriented industries looses their competitive advantage[12,13]. An innovation system approach has been developed over two decades in order to study cumulative growth processes at a regional and national level [14,15,16,17].
The narrow definition of innovation systems includes Research & Development activities at universities, research institutes and firms Research & Development departments. This definition can be linked to the science, technology and innovation (STI) mode of innovation. Innovation activity is science-based, involving R&D departments in firms in collaboration with universities and R&D institutes [12,19].
The broad definition of an innovation system includes all the actors and activities that affect learning, knowledge creation and innovation. In 2005 Edquist defines systems of innovation as ‘all important economic, social, political, organizational, institutional and other factors that influence the development, diffusion and „use of innovations”. The broad definition relates ,to the doing, using and interaction (DUI) mode of innovation.Innovation activity is experience-based and competence is built through on-the-job training and education, rather than on R&D [19]. The concept includes not only organized R&D, which arguably is a small activity in many developing countries, but also other capabilities needed for the commercial exploitation of technology. As has become common in the literature he considered three aspects of it: production capability, investment capability and innovation capability[11]. One case which received much attention was the rise of Korea from being one of the poorest countries in the world to a first world technological powerhouse in just three decades. Linsu Kim suggested the concept of “technological capability” [23,24] as an analytical device to interpret the Korean evidence. Kim’s assessment was that the requirements should be expected to become more stringent, in particular with respect to innovation capabilities. Learning and innovation can take place without research and development (R&D), for example „through acquisition of tacit and practical knowledge, and through formal and informal diffusion between firms” [25,26].
A recent trend in the innovative performance of a firm is increasing R&D cooperation with customers and suppliers, competitors, universities, and public research organizations [27].
The results show that a firm’s cooperation activities are closely linked to the characteristics of both the industry and the firm as well as to the origin of public funds for Research & Development activities. In line with the results of other studies, we show that the industry has a strong effect on a firm’s capacity to innovate, to make Research & Development [33]. Firm size and innovation activities are related to the propensity of the firm to establish Research & Development agreements. Informal agreements are more difficult to identify because they involve sporadic relations between the agents. Most empirical studies concern formal Research & Development cooperation [28,29] but informal Research & Development cooperation also has an important role .
In the last few years Research & Development cooperation with other firms and institutions has been analyzed using three approaches[30]. :
• The first one is the transaction cost approach, which considers that cooperative R&D projects enable the costs and risks of R&D activities to be shared and the dissemination of the results to be protected) [30]..
• The second one is the strategic management approach, which consider that cooperative behavior is a way of accessing additional resources and that this leads to competitive advantages [30].
• The third one is the industrial organization approach, which focuses on knowledge spillovers between
partners[30]. This approach considers that the more knowledge spillovers there are, the greater are the incentives to cooperate and limit access to the results of the process. To protect the results of R&D activities, firms can invest in appropriation instruments. Cohen and Levinthal introduced the term “firm absorptive capacity” and pointed out the dual role of R&D as both a producer of new information and a tool of a firm’s ability to learn from existing information [31,32]. More recently, Cassiman and Veugelers distinguished between incoming spillovers, which affect a firm’s innovation rate, which affects a firm’s ability to appropriate the returns from innovation [28] .
A. Segarra-Blasco, J.-M. Arauzo-Carod believe that public administrations have a key role in promoting cooperation and innovation activities by offering public funds to innovative firms, especially SME firms with important internal R&D activities. This appears to be one of the most effective ways of stimulating innovation. If public policies are not heavily R&D oriented, innovative firms suffer from a lack of support that is an important barrier to innovation [33] .
3. Research methodology
Research methodology in this paper is based on the simulation of the data from 2000 to 2008-2010 for
Share of turnover of innovative product business with innovations from the total turnover of innovative enterprises by size class and economic activity (in percentage) (values in 2002, 2004, 2006 are taken from 13.27 of the Statistical Yearbook of Romania 2009 and values are taken from the 2008 statistical Yearbook of Romania 2010, 13.19)
We study the following cases: ,Products unchanged or partially changed, New or significantly improved products, new business, New or significantly improved products, new market.industry per total and for manufacturing. Studies are made on small and medium SMEs sectors of industry and in particular for small and medium SMEs in Manufacturing,
[Sources:
SMEs where were indicated innovations as products unchanged or partially changed, new or significantly improved products, new business, new or significantly improved products, new to market for some sectors as industry and manufacturing .
4. Theretical concepts
TURNOVER represents the amount of revenue from sales of goods, execution of works and services, less rebates, discounts and other discounts given to the clients. Turnover data does not include VAT.
Turnover has obvious managerial meanings of the following reasons:
• is the value and volume of business conducted by the firm through the current exercise of his business, understanding the business strategy and market position turnover will be considered in the following structure: operating turnover (core business) and turnover outside exploitation (other activities), knowing the size of turnover are obtained information on:
9 Firm size (expressed by sales volume), representing one of the main determinants of business
strategy,
9 Economic status (which means the economic results of carrying out business activity, compared with its resources), a good economic state means obtaining and selling a large quantity of goods and services, representing a high recovery capabilities, completed in a profit and a appropriate liquidity,
• gives the firm market size, expressing the actual capacity of the market, especially useful in studies of marketing and business development strategies, the indicators:
9 Market share - a measure of market share the company is product or product group to which it belongs and is calculated by dividing the volume of sales of the company's total sales volume of product on the market considered;
9 Market growth rate - is expressed usually by the pace of evolution of sales;
9 Degree of saturation of the market, global analysis, the product and even sizes, is calculated by dividing the volume of sales volume in the same market demand and at the same time, Overall business objectives determine what must be done in terms of revenue, profit and market share, reaching projected levels giving strategic position the firm size,
9 is the calculation of key efficiency indicators (profit, rate of return) also constitutes an essential element in relation to cost - volume business - profit and breakeven determination, analysis of project breakeven sales may be necessary to generate the desired profit,
9 Position turnover in the firm's economic performance system (understood as firm performance
firm's ability to increase the volume of activity) is enhanced by the relationship between the general interests of managers and maximizing turnover or sales, the management option, generally maximize turnover within the range to be made and a reasonable profit,
Turnover is determined depending on the factors of influence, the following calculation: 1) Firms with complex production and marketing in stores: Ca = Qv + Vm,
where:
Qv = production sold, which, factorial, depending on the quantity sold (qi), sales structure (gi) and sales prices (pvi)
Qv =
∑
=
×
n ipvi
gi
qi
1)
(
(
Vm = value of goods sold
2) Causal link between turnover (sales) and the human potential is expressed by the relation:
wh
h
z
s
L
wz
z
s
L
W
Np
Ca
=
×
=
×
×
×
=
×
×
×
×
where :
Np
= number of employessW
=; average labor productivityL = jobs
s = exchange coefficient;
z = number of days worked / shift / job
wz
= daily labor productivityh = number of hours worked / day;
wh = hourly productivity
3) Causal link between turnover, leverage production level of technical equipment manufactured and work is expressed by the relation:
Qf
Ca
Mf
Qf
Np
Mf
Np
Qf
Ca
Np
Qf
Np
=
Np
Qf
labor productivity
=
Qf
Ca
leverage of manufactured products;
=
Np
Mf
degree of technical endowment of labor;
=
Mf
Qf
performance (efficiency) of fixed assets
4) For firms with trade is operating a model factorial analysis of turnover according to the commercial
network capacity:
Ca
=
S
×
d
where : S = (m2) : commercial area (m2)
d
= average selling / m2 commercial area,100
1∑
=
×
=
n
i
di
gsi
d
,Where:
gsi = commercial area distribution sectors, groups of goods, sales forms di = sales per m2 of commercial area
5) Balance depending on the movement of goods, starting from the relation:
Sf = Si + I – E (Ca), Ca = Si + I – Sf
Where : Sf, Si = final balance / initial
I = input
E = output (volume for sales or turnover)
5. Descriptive statistics and results
First we study in the present paper the turnover in SME’s in Romania in the period 2000-2008 for the general case and after that we try to make a study of share of turnover of innovative product business with innovations from the total turnover of innovative enterprises by size class and economic activity . The last study is done for the following cases : products unchanged or partially changed; new or significantly improved products, new business; new or significantly improved products, new market
Studies are made for total small and medium SMEs and for the sectors of industry and manufacturing.
Studying Turnover in SME’s in Romania in the period 2000-2008
We can see in table 1 and table 2 the values obtained from the Database Tempo online from Romanian Institute of Statistics, last accessed in October 2011 for turnover for SMEs with majority state ownership and turnover for SMEs with private majority ownership. We study here the total turnover and separately the turnover for small SMEs and for medium SMEs.
The values from 2002, 2004, 2006 are taken from 13.27 from the Statistical Yearbook of Romania 2009 and values are taken from the 2008 statistical Yearbook of Romania 2010, 13.19)[2]
Table 1: Turnover for SMEs with majority state ownership
Total turnover
Turnover for small SMEs
Turnover for medium SMEs
2000 139633,2 53502,7 24773,7
2001 202320,1 73277,6 39897,5
2002 267591,5 97475 52743,3
2003 345743,1 128215,7 69881,3
2004 450843 161519 95761
2005 512614 186754 108150
2006 627535 235857 133503
2007 769905 292736 175095
2008 954025 363476 218410
a b
Figure 1: Turnover for SMEs: a) Turnover for SMEs with majority state ownership; b) Turnover for SMEs with private majority ownership. Source: Author’s calculus.
We can see, more appropriate, that the turnover obtained from innovative small SMEs has higher values then in those obtained from innovative medium SMEs .The highest values is obtained in 2008 for both of them. Higher values are obtained in SMEs with majority state ownership then in SMEs with private majority ownership.
Table 2: Turnover for SMEs with private majority ownership
Year
Total turnover
Turnover for small SMEs
Turnover for medium SMEs
2000 107009,8 53173,1 23788
2001 160150,8 73026,7 38673,8
2002 217929,9 97318,1 51286,4
2003 289136,7 128027,2 68192,1
2004 397030 161282 93791
2005 462874 186419 105924
2006 582912 235587 130424
2007 724456 292400 171482
Share of turnover of innovative product business with innovations from the total turnover of innovative enterprises by size class and economic activity
Share of turnover of innovative product business with innovations from the total turnover of innovative enterprises by size class and economic activity is expressed in percentage. The values from 2002, 2004, 2006 are taken from 13.27 from the Statistical Yearbook of Romania 2009 and values are taken from the 2008 statistical Yearbook of Romania 2010, 13.19)
We study the following cases: products unchanged or partially changed; new or significantly improved products, new business; new or significantly improved products, new market
Studies are made for total small and medium SMEs and for the sectors of industry and manufacturing. We study in this paper 3 cases :
Case 1: Partly unchanged or modified products
Case 2: New products or significantly improved new business Case 3: New products or significantly improved new market
Table 3: Share of turnover of innovative product business with innovations from the total turnover of innovative enterprises by size class and economic activity ( percentage) [2].
Partly unchanged or modified products
New products or significantly improved new business
New products or significantly improved new market
2002 2004 2006 2008 2002 2004 2006 2008 2002 2004 2006 2008
Total SMEs 27.4 28.5 23.7 33.4 1.6 9.5 13.7 17.4 7.8 7.2 4.9 7.2
Small SMEs 8.2 14.8 7.3 15 0.6 3.8 5 11.5 4.7 1.5 1.7 5
Medium SMEs 14.3 21.8 13 23.1 2.3 7.4 8 11 7 4 2.7 6.1
Industry total 33.9 33.7 24.6 32 1.8 10.4 17.5 21.6 9.4 9.6 4.4 8.4
Small SMEs in industry 11.8 14.9 7.4 14.9 1 5.7 7 15.5 5.9 2 2.1 8.6
Medium SMEs in
industry 17.8 21.8 17.3 22.3 2.9 7.7 9.9 11.5 9.1 5.3 3.1 6.9
Manufacturing total 35.7 35.7 26.2 39 2.4 11.8 17.4 14.7 10.9 4.7 4.7 10.9
Small SMEs in
Manufacturing 12 15.2 8 15.4 1 5.8 6.1 16.1 6 2.1 2.2 7.2
Medium SMEs in
Manufacturing 17.6 21.9 15.6 24.7 2.9 7.8 10.4 12.5 9.2 5.4 3.3 7.5
Case 1 : Partly unchanged or modified products
We can see from table 3 and figure 2 that share of turnover which corresponds to innovative products business for partly unchanged or modified products, for total SMEs have the lowest values in 2006 as 23.7% form the turnover of the company and the highest value is in 2008 as 33.4%. For small SMEs the values increase from 8.2% in 2002 to 15 % in 2008 and for medium SMEs from 14.3% in 2002 to 21.8 in 2004 after that decrease in 2006 to 13% and have the highest value as 23.1% in 2008. The values for total SMEs corresponds for: industry, mining and quarrying, manufacturing, electricity, gas and water and services.
The values for share of turnover which corresponds to innovative products business for partly unchanged or modified products in industry decrease from 33.9% in 2002 to 24.6% in 2006 and increase again to 32% in 2008. The values for small SMEs in industry vary from 11.8 % in 2002 to 14.9 in 2004, after that the values decrease to decrease 7.4% in 2006 to increase again to 14.9 in 2008. In medium SMEs in industry, the values for share of turnover which corresponds to innovative products business for partly unchanged or modified products, vary in between 17.8% in 2002 to 22.3% in 2008.
Figure 2: Innovations in SMEs : for total firms and for small and medium firms , Innovations in industry per total and for small and medium firms in industry, and innovations in manufacturing sector per total and for small and medium firms in manufacturing: Products unchanged or partially changed,Source: Author’s calculus
0 50 100 150 200 250
2002 2004 2006 2008
Partly unchange d or modifie d products Medium SMEs in Manufacturing Small SMEs in Manufacturing Manufacturing total
Medium SMEs in industry Small SMEs in industry Industry total
Medium SMEs
Small SMEs
The values for share of turnover which corresponds to innovative products business for partly unchanged or modified products in manufacturing sector per total decrease from 35.7% in 2002 and 2004 to 26.2% in 2006 and increase again in 2008 to 39%.. The highest values are registered in Medium SMEs in between 15.6% in 2006 and 24.7 in 2008. and in small SMEs in manufacturing sector the values vary between 8% in 2006 and 15.4 % in 2008 .
Case 2: New products or significantly improved new business
From figure 3 and Table 3 we can see that the values for share of turnover which corresponds to new products or significantly improved new business for the total SMEs registered increase from 1.6% in 2002 to 17.4% in 2008. For the small SMEs these values vary from 0.6% in 2002 to 11.5% in 2008 and for the medium SMEs increase from 2.3% in 2002 to 11% in 2008. The values for share of turnover which corresponds to innovative products business for partly unchanged or modified products in manufacturing sector per total, the values increase from 2.4 % in 2002 to 17.4% in 2006 and decrease in 2008 at the value of 14.7% in 2008.for the small SMEs these values increase from 1% in 2002 to 16.1% in 2008 . For Medium SMEs the values are increasing from 2.9% in 2002 to 12.5% in 2008 . This is not a linear increasing.
Figure 3 : Innovations in SMEs : for total firms and for small and medium firms , Innovations in industry per total and for small and medium firms in industry, and innovations in manufacturing sector per total and for small and medium firms in manufacturing: New or significantly improved products, new business,Source: Author calculus
Case 3: New products or significantly improved new market
The values for share of turnover which corresponds to new products or significantly improved new market for total SMEs the values are decreasing from 7.8 % in 2002 to 4.9 % in 2006 and increase again in 2008 at 7.2%. We can see from table 3 and figure 4 that values for small SMEs are decreasing from 4.7% in 2002 to 1.7% in 2006 and in 2008 value is 5%.the values for medium SMEs decrease from 7% in 2002 to 6.1% in 2008. In industry per total these values are decreasing from 9.4% in 2002 to 8.4% in 2008. In medium SMEs these values decreased from 9.1% in 2002 to 6.9 % in 2008 . In the sector of manufacturing per total the values for share of turnover which corresponds to new products or significantly improved new marketare decreasing from 10.9in 2002 to 4.7 in 2004 and 2006 and in 2008 the value become again 10.9%. For medium SMEs in manufacturing sector these values are decreasing from 9.2% in 2002 to 7.5% in 2008.
Figure 3 : Innovations in SMEs : for total firms and for small and medium firms , Innovations in industry per total and for small and medium firms in industry, and innovations in manufacturing sector per total and for small and medium firms in manufacturing: New or significantly improved products, new market. Source: Author’s calculus
6. Conclusions
We study in this paper 3 cases for Share of turnover of innovative product business, innovations with the total turnover innovative enterprises by size class and economic activity ( percentage) (values in 2002, 2004, 2006 are taken from 13.27 of the Statistical Yearbook of Romania 2009 and values are taken from the 2008 statistical Yearbook of Romania 2010, 13.19).
For those 3 cases the results are as follows: 0
20 40 60 80 100 120 140
2002 2004 2006 2008
New products or significantly improved new business Medium SMEs Small SMEs
Manufacturing
Medium SMEs
Small SMEs
Industry
Medium SMEs
Small SMEs
Total SMEs
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
2002 2004 2006 2008
New products or significantly improved to new market
Medium SMEs
Small SMEs
Manufacturing
Medium SMEs
Small SMEs
Industry
Medium SMEs
Small SMEs
In Case 1: Partly unchanged or modified products: for this situation the values are increasing from 2002 to 2008; In Case 2: New products or significantly improved new business: for this situation the values are decreasing from 2002 to 2008 and
In Case 3: New products or significantly improved new market : for this situation the value are decreasing slowly , and in some situation the values are almost constant.
Because the values are not so many we can not make a prevision for the next 10 year for example and we can’t make a fitting for the obtained results.
7. References
1. Science, technology and innovation in Europe, Eurostat Pocketbooks, European Commission, 2011 Edition,
ISSN 1830-754X, Cap,5, Innovation, cap,7, High Technologies,
2. Statistical Yearbook of Romania, 2009 and 2010, cap,15, Enterprises activity, cap,13, Science and Technology, 3. http://appsso, Eurostat, EC, Europe, I / odd / setupMetadata, do
4. http://www.insse.ro/cms/files/Anuar%20statistic/13/13%20Stiinta,%20tehnologie%20si%20inovare_ro.pdf
5. OECD (1994), Proposed Standard Practice for Surveys of Research and Experimental Development – Frascati
Manual 1993, Paris, para, 147, 164
6. The measurement of Scientific and technological activities proposed guidelines for collecting and interpreting technological innovation data, OSLO MANUAL, European Commission Eurostat, second edition , 2005, 7. Gerschenkron, A., 1962. Economic Backwardness in Historical Perspective.The Belknap Press, Cambridge, MA. 8. Schumpeter, J., 1934. The Theory of Economic Development. Harvard University,Press, Cambridge, MA. 9. Schumpeter, J., 1943. Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. Harper, New York.
10.Fagerberg Jan, Martin Srholec, National innovation systems, capabilities and economic development, Research Policy 37 (2008) 1417–1435
11.Fagerberg, J., Mowery, D.C., Nelson, R.R. (Eds.), 2005. The Oxford Handbook of Innovation. Oxford
University Press, Oxford.
12.Bjřrnar Saether, Arne Isaksen, Asbjřrn Karlsen, Innovation by co-evolution in natural resource industries – The Norwegian experience, Geoforum, Volume 42, Issue 3, June 2011, Pages 373-381
13.Cappelen, Ĺ., Mjřset, L., 2009. Can Norway Be a Role Model for Natural Resource Abundant Countries? United Nations University-Wider Research Paper No.23.
14.Cooke, P., 2004. Complexity and industrial clusters: dynamics and models in theory and practice. European Planning Studies 12 (4), 595–599.
15.Cooke, P., Boekholt, P., Tödtling, F., 2000. The Governance of Innovation in Europe.Regional Perspectives on Global Competitiveness. Pinter, London
16.Lundvall, B.-Ĺ., 2007. National innovation systems – analytical concept and development tool. Industry and Innovation 14 (1), 95–119.
17.Lundvall, B.Ĺ., Johnsen, B., Andersen, E.S., Dalum, B., 2002. National systems of production, innovation and competence building. Research Policy 31 (2), 213–231.
18.Lundvall, B,-Å,, (2007), National innovation systems – analytical concept and development tool, Industry and Innovation 14 (1), 95–119,
19.Jensen, M,B,, Johnson, B,, Lorenz, E,, Lundvall, B,Å,,( 2007), Forms of knowledge and modes of innovation, Research Policy 36 (5), 680–693,
20.Fagerberg, J,, Mowery, D,C,, Nelson, R,R, (Eds,), 2005, The Oxford Handbook of Innovation, Oxford
University Press, Oxford,
21.Fagerberg Jan, Bart Verspagen, Innovation studies—The emerging structure of a new scientific field, Research Policy 38 (2009) 218–233.
22.Fagerberg Jan , Srholec Martin , Knell Mark, The Competitiveness of Nations: Why Some Countries Prosper While Others Fall Behind, World Development Vol. 35, No. 10, pp. 1595–1620, 2007
23.Kim, L., 1980. Stages of development of industrial technology in a developing country: a model. Research Policy 9, 254–277.
24.Kim, L., 1997. Imitation to Innovation: The Dynamics of Korea’s Technological Learning. Harvard Business School Press, Harvard.
25.Jacobson, D., Heanue, K., 2005. Implications of low-tech research for policy. In: Hirsch-Kreinsen, H., Jacobson, D., Laestadius, S. (Eds.), Low-Tech Innovation in the Knowledge Economy. Peter Lang, Frankfurt, pp. 315–331.
26.Martin Heidenreich, Innovation patterns and location of European low- and medium-technology
industries,Research Policy 38 (2009) 483–494
27.Fritsch, M., Lukas, R., 2001. Who cooperate on R&D? Research Policy 30,297–312.
28.Cassiman, B., Veugelers, R., 2002. R&D cooperation and spillovers: some empirical evidence from Belgium. American Economic Review 92 (4),( 2002), 1169–1184.
29.Miotti, L., Sachwald, F., 2003. Co-operative R&D: why and with whom? An integrated framework of analysis. Research Policy 32, ( 2003) 1481–1499.
31.Cohen, W., Levinthal, D., 1989. Innovation and learning: the two faces of R&D. Economic Journal 99, 569–596.
32.Cohen, W.M., Levinthal, D.A., 1990. Absorptive-capacity—a new perspective on learning and innovation.
Administrative Science Quarterly 35(1), 128–152.
